THE
SPECTATOR
The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL Telephone: 071-405 1706; Telex 27124; Fax 071-242 0603
THE SPIRIT OF 1695
In a week of Cabinet reshuffles and lead- ership elections, it is worth pausing, just for one moment, to remember an incident which occurred 300 years ago. In 1695, two MPs were caught taking money from men who hoped the bribe would buy them influence in the House of Commons. The response was immediate. The House passed a ruling that 'the offer of money, or other advantage, to any Member of Parliament for the promot- ing of any matter whatsoever, depending to be transacted by Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour and tends to the subver- sion of the English Constitution'.
It is puzzling why anyone should think that there is anything further to say on the issue. But the MPs currently sitting in the House of Commons obviously do think that there is a great deal more to say. While anxiously awaiting news of promotion and change over the past week, they have been arguing over who should sit on a special committee to investigate issues arising from the discovery that at least two MPs may have been prepared to sell parliamentary questions for £1,000 apiece. If convened, the committee is confidently predicted to sit for several months, deep in meditation on whether the two men did anything wrong; no doubt we will hear its conclusions once the story has been long out of the news.
But what is there to discuss? Either we live in a democracy or a plutocracy. If it is a plutocracy, political power is simply a com- modity to be bought and sold like any other. The richer you are, the more politi- cal rights you can buy. Politicians become the tools of those with plenty of money. They can safely ignore everyone else. In a democracy — in case MPs have forgotten — what counts is citizenship, not wealth; politicians are there to represent their con- stituents, and not to follow the orders of rich people who can afford to pay bribes. Three centuries ago, the House of Com- mons ruled decisively against plutocracy. The present members, however, seem unsure about the decision taken in 1695. Part of the problem is that many of them — and not just one or two — stand to lose by the replacement of plutocracy by democra- cy. The nine Tory members of the proposed committee, for instance, hold no fewer than 18 outside company directorships and con- sultancies between them. Meanwhile, some MPs claim that the real villain is the Sunday Times, which committed the unforgiveable offence of revealing to the public what every- one at Westminster already knew: money will buy you parliamentary time. When they want to legitimise the taking of money in exchange for dispensing politi- cal influence, MPs point to the Register of Members' interests. The Register actually does nothing of the kind. It is a very recent innovation dating from the 1970s, and it represents an outrageous affront to the rul- ing of 1695. For what the Register says, in effect, is that it is fine for MPs to be paid to ask questions, sponsor motions, or vote in debates according to which companies have offered the most spectacular financial inducement to do so — in the form of a directorship or a seat on the board — pro- viding the MPs declare who is paying them. Theft is fine, in other words, providing you leave a note saying what you took. The Register is also voluntary. There are no penalties attached for not complying. And it does not require a member to say how much he is getting: it could be £5 or it could be £50,000. No one is ever going to know. We have grown so used to the Register that the fact that it legitimises what would be called straightforward political corruption anywhere else goes unnoticed. But, in fact, there is little difference between the activi- ties of some members on the Register and the two MPs recently accused of more bla- tant behaviour.
It is interesting to speculate on what would happen if members of the House of Commons were subject to the same rules and regulations as other public officials. Civil servants and councillors would not merely be sacked if they accepted money for using their official positions to further some outside interest, they would face charges of corruption; consider what would happen to a local councillor who helped grant planning permission to a supermarket chain because the company paid him a 'consultancy' fee of £20,000 a year.
There is no reason why MPs should escape the same rigorous standards which we, and they, expect of every other public servant. Many of them will bleat that they need the extra money that outside consul- tancies bring in. They say £30,000 plus £34,000 in expenses just isn't enough to live on. Even if MPs are underpaid — not a widely shared view in the United Kingdom at present — that fact could not possibly legitimate the taking of bribes to make up the current shortfall. Those on the dole could use exactly the same argument to legitimise a part-time career in burglary. MPs currently in receipt of fat consultan- cies and directorships will tell everyone that it is not so simple. They're wrong. It is. Until they realise it, our country is in danger of sliding from democracy to plutocracy: this is one of the most important issues facing Mr Major's new Cabinet. Let it be hoped that the spirit 01 1695 will rescue us from the corruption of 1994.
Previous page
